neighbourhood planning hive report: experiences …...np hive report – june 2018 ii preface this...

Neighbourhood Planning HIVE

report: experiences of

participants

June 2018

Gavin Parker, Kat Salter, Mark Dobson

Department of Real Estate and Planning University of Reading

Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6UD Contact us on: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

NP HIVE report – June 2018

ii

Preface

This report has been developed as a follow-up from the Neighbourhood Planning HIVE which

took place on 6th June 2018. This represents a further iteration of work undertaken at the

University of Reading since 2014 in seeking to understand issues and solutions to more

effective neighbourhood planning (see Parker et al, 2014; Parker and Wargent, 2017a, b;

Parker and Salter, 2017). The HIVE event involved a selected group of 35 active

neighbourhood planners working on a series of key areas of concern in Neighbourhood

Planning. The work was overseen and facilitated by Prof Gavin Parker with Kat Salter and

Mark Dobson plus three student volunteers.

The authors wish to acknowledge the time and input of the HIVE participants as part of this

co-produced research effort.


iii

Content

1. Introduction

2. Method

3. Neighbourhood Planning: What do we know so far?

4. LPA relations with Neighbourhood Planning groups

Overview

HIVE Findings

5. Evidence in Neighbourhood Planning

Overview

HIVE Findings

6. Implementation of Neighbourhood Plans

Overview

HIVE Findings

7. Advice and resources for Neighbourhood Planning

Overview

HIVE Findings

8. Conclusions and Outstanding Questions

9. References and resources


1

1. Introduction

Neighbourhood planning (NP) has gained

considerable momentum since its

introduction in 2010-11 when the first

vanguard/frontrunner areas were

announced. Since that time over 2,300

groups have been active with the number

of ‘made’ neighbourhood plans ever

increasing. While government and others

have been quick to point to the success of

NP, there is considerable evidence that

shows that neighbourhood planning carries

significant burdens and difficulties. If NP is

to develop an internal momentum that is

self-sustaining, a number of the

difficulties need ongoing identification

and attention. Some issues are for national

government to address, some for local

government, some for neighbourhoods and

steering groups and some are shared issues

that require cooperative effort rather than

regulatory change or new resources.

The neighbourhood planning HIVE was

designed to bring together neighbourhood

planners actively engaged in the process to

discuss and share experience and

knowledge. The activity produced was

supplemented by a layer of previously

collected survey data from participants,

and this was mixed with existing

knowledge to create a frame for

deliberation during the HIVE.

The participants were:

o all active neighbourhood planners;

o the majority were from Parished

areas (reflecting NP take-up

generally);

o the population of areas represented

ranged from 350 to 30,000;

o at all stages of Plan development –

with an emphasis on later stages.

The purpose of this report is to pull

together responses from all HIVE

participants and serve as a collective note

of HIVE. The report will be used to form

the basis of further recommendations via

a more detailed report (which will

synthesise this with past iterations of

findings in 2014 and 2017), that will be

sent to Government and other

stakeholders, as part of the ongoing effort

to improve community participation in

planning - which is a feature of the

research philosophy at Reading under this

topic heading.


2

2. Method

The approach underpinning this report is

one of co-production, which mirrors the

anticipated sensibility that neighbourhood

planning stakeholders operate with. This

involves partners co-evolving policy and

practice. In this instance between

academic researchers and NP

practitioners.

The approach is intended to aid processes

of mutual support and peer learning,

which are recognised as important and

valued in neighbourhood planning. The

HIVE event was specifically designed to

reflect the issues of importance to those

attending.

In order to shape the HIVE coverage a pre-

event questionnaire was produced and

completed by participants and other

eligible neighbourhood planners unable to

attend on the day. This data was then

analysed and pre-existing understandings

of those topic areas were assembled to

inform the HIVE. The submissions received

also aided the research team to form a

sample of groups to be invited to the HIVE

event. The participants were, as a result,

taken across urban and rural

neighbourhoods and most were well

advanced in their neighbourhood plans

with some having completed the process

(i.e. reached ‘Made’ status).

The HIVE day centred around a series of

‘workshops’ centring on the key themes

seen to be priorities for attention. Each

HIVE group was between 6-8 people who

deliberated each of the topic areas one by

one using series of structuring questions to

shape the discussions. Each HIVE featured

a note taker and facilitator and the

sessions were audio-recorded for the

purposes of fair representation of views in

this and related outputs.

HIVE Questionnaire survey

The pre-event questionnaire assisted the

organisers to shape the agenda for the day

and helped determine the sample group to

be invited to the HIVE. The questions were

wide ranging and the was designed to take

approximately 30 mins to complete. The

questionnaire was offered through survey

monkey and prepared following the ethical

research guidelines operated by the

University of Reading. A summary of key

responses are set out as they relate to the

key themes across Chapters 4-7. This

survey tool was still open (by late June

2018) via the NP website and may be

viewed:

www.reading.ac.uk/neighbourhoodplanni

ng.

The HIVE event

The event centred around a series of four

topics areas discussed through five sets of

participants who were selected, through

the survey, to ensure a diversity of stages,

areas and views were expressed.

The HIVE discussions centred on the

following four themes spanning a full day

of activity:

The role and relationship of the Local Planning Authority – in terms of their duty to support and the approach taken in this co-produced effort;

The evidence base for the Plan – what is evidence, how to access or commission this, how to ensure quality and how to use evidence in the development of the plan;

Implementation of the Neighbourhood Plan – how the Plan will be used and kept up to date;

Support and resources – how citizen-planners are assisted, informed, and sustained through a taxing process.

These topics were leavened by three structuring questions which acted to guide the discussions. The topics are discussed in

http://www.reading.ac.uk/neighbourhoodplanning



3

the following Chapters (4-7) after a brief overview (Chapter 3) of key research themes and issues that have permeated the research literature on NP so far i.e. ‘what we know so far’. This latter section is brief but a richer assembly of outputs is found on the website: www.reading.ac.uk/neighbourhoodplanning

Al our research is guided by our research

ethics policy, see:

http://www.reading.ac.uk/internal/imps

/DataProtection/imps-d-p-

dataprotectionandresearch.aspx If you

have any concerns please contact one of

the authors.



http://www.reading.ac.uk/internal/imps/DataProtection/imps-d-p-dataprotectionandresearch.aspx




4

3. Neighbourhood

Planning: What do we

know so far?

3.1 Introduction

Since 2010-11 neighbourhood planning has

attracted a considerable amount of

attention from researchers. Numerous

aspects of the endeavour have been

questioned, including the four broad

themes expressed below. This feedback

has produced a series of responses from

government and support organisations to

try and address perceived weaknesses or

difficulties. These relate to the process

and as well as the basis upon which NP has

been developed.

Initially Government made a series of

assumptions about the ability and

willingness of communities to pursue

neighbourhood planning, and offered a

limited support package and minimal

guidance. This was part of an experiment

in an ‘open source’ approach to planning

activity but also a policy that was launched

at the height of ‘austerity’.

This approach did not fully recognise

differential capacity or specific obstacles

facing different places. Instead the

support offer was rolled out on a first

come, first served basis. Since 2011 it has

become more apparent that the difficulty

of navigating NP and ensuring that a Plan

that can withstand external challenge has

been under-estimated. Our past research

has indicated that support, response of

Local Authorities and difficulties with

technical aspects of NP have been primary

issues. These, coupled with wider

research, have indicated numerous points

which can be grouped into some key

themes:

Plan Quality – and its robustness,

both as a product of preparation and

of external change;

Inclusivity of Plan making – the

quality of engagement and of

evidence;

Innovation and constraints – the

difficulties of creating novel policy;

Conflict and relations – the

challenges of taking on topics that

arouse passions and impact on

numerous interests;

Peer learning – a desire to learn

from others but also questions about

‘whom to learn from?’;

Advice and guidance – this has been

fragmentary and groups complain of

inconsistency and uncertainty.

Below we provide a brief synopsis (see also

Parker and Wargent, 2017a, b; Parker and

Wargent 2018).

3.2 Quality and robustness of the process

Concerns have been raised regarding the

ability of ‘lay persons’ to write

implementable planning policies (Parker

et al, 2015; Parker and Wargent, 2017a, b)

with many groups seeking professional

input. This has resulted in concerns

regarding re-scripting and the loss of

community ownership (Parker et al, 2015).

Support from the Local Planning Authority

is considered to be critical, however,

there is a mixed picture of Local Planning

Authority / community relations

emerging.

The examination is a key stage in the

process which has resulted in the majority

of Plans facing substantial modification

(Parker, Salter and Hickman, 2016). Every

effort should be made by groups to ensure

the submitted Plan meets the

requirements and that the policies are

written clearly and concisely - supported

by a robust evidence base.

3.3 Inclusion/diversity in process and policy


5

The decision as to whether to develop a

neighbourhood plan rests with

communities. Only those with the time,

skills, resources and motivation are likely

to engage in the process (Davoudi and

Cowie, 2013). Concerted efforts must be

made to engage with the wider community

with open consultation and debate to be

encouraged (Vigar, Brookes and Gunn,

2012).

Groups need to ensure that the Plan

represents, as far as possible, the views of

residents, businesses and those employed

within the area, with specific attention to

be paid to engaging with ‘hard to reach’

groups. A range of methods should be

used to get as many people involved as

possible, with ongoing engagement

through the development of the Plan.

3.4 Innovation and Neighbourhood Planning

Neighbourhood Planning provides

communities the right to shape the future

development of their area and to address

the specific issues facing their locality.

Some examiners have expressed

frustration that communities are not being

bold enough in their aspirations which is

resulting in missed opportunities (Parker,

Salter and Hickman, 2016).

While the jury is still out on whether

neighbourhood planning is delivering

additional housing, attention is being

placed on the positive and innovative

outcomes of the neighbourhood planning

process. Research by Bradley (2017) has

found that by invoking a sense of

community identity, through the inclusion

of “place identify” frames such as “market

town” or “village life” neighbourhood

plans may be able to win community

support for development. Furthermore,

some neighbourhood plans have taken the

opportunity to advance socially and

environmentally sustainable solutions and

to prioritise local issues such as heritage,

identity and local housing needs including

providing housing for older people, young

families and households with disabled

residents (Bailey, 2017; Bradley and

Sparling, 2017; Field and Layard, 2017).

Thus neighbourhood plans may deliver

different ways of ‘doing’ planning with

different considerations and a range of

motivations and aspirations that are

fundamentally distinct from explicit

business models of the large UK house-

building companies.

3.5 Peer learning for practitioners

Neighbourhood plans have to meet a series

of legislative requirements and are

constrained in what they can and cannot

deliver. This has led to concerns from local

authority planners as to the extent that

communities are ‘empowered’ to shape

their area and their ability to influence

local development. Furthermore, national

government view neighbourhood planning

as a tool to deliver growth and a

mechanism to promote greater housing

delivery within localities. Conflicts can

thus emerge between the ‘empowerment’

and ‘growth’ agendas as well as the

influence of knowledge held by ‘local

heroes’ and that by ‘remote officials’

(Stanier, 2014). These differing views and

perspectives on neighbourhood planning

can lead to distrust between communities

and local / national government.

3.6 Conflict and relations

Neighbourhood planning has the potential

to cause tension within and between local

communities, as well as with the local

planning authority, because of the

emotional connections to people and place.

Conflict can emerge when defining the


6

neighbourhood area boundary, in relation

to broader questions regarding the

representativeness and legitimacy of those

engaged in the process and due to

differing views and opinions on the ‘future’

of the locality.

The mediating influence of local

authorities, consultants and examiners on

neighbourhood plans (to make them

complaint with national policy and ready

for public referendum) can work to dilute

and re-frame the ambitions of local

communities and their intended outcomes

creating friction between the key actors

(Parker, Lynn and Wargent, 2017).

Furthermore, whilst neighbourhood

planning offers a new and accessible

community outlet for local politics

(Bradley, 2015), there are concerns that

apparent consensus might actually hide

different local views, opinions and

knowledge about the locality (Vigar, Gunn

and Brooks, 2017). This is particularly the

case when working within ‘super diverse’

communities that often characterise urban

areas (Colomb, 2017).

3.7 Support and guidance

We explore this topic in chapter 7 but so

far the wider topic area and linked issues

have been live ones. The Neighbourhood

Planning User Report work produced in

2017 (Parker and Wargent, 2017a, b)

confirmed that the production of clear

advice was critical. Participants felt that

there was a large amount of advice

available, but desired definitive advice on

particular issues (e.g. the need for a

Strategic Environmental Assessment and

how to word Plan policies). In general

respondents desired this advice to come

from their LPA rather than other sources –

given possible confusion. The initial 2014

NP users study (Parker et al, 2014) also

highlighted a need for appropriate

standardisation where it is possible i.e.

templates for particular tasks - some of

this has been done and see planning Aid

England’s support materials:

https://www.ourneighbourhoodplanning.

org.uk/resources/documents

3.8 Summary of legislative changes to

Neighbourhood Planning

In general there has been a shift away

from the envisaged “light-touch”

approach with NPs having been subject to

developer challenges and as a result being

tested through the High Courts. This

process has confirmed that NP policies and

proposals have to be backed up by robust

evidence and due process has to be

followed. This has prompted government

to respond to a variety of issues, given

they have remained committed to NP.

Thus the NP regulations and support

arrangements have been amended over

time. Some reforms have been oriented to

speed up and simplify the process,

including the introduction of time-scales

and provision of funding to support groups.

Other measures have been introduced to

bolster public confidence in the utility of

neighbourhood planning.

For examples the continued support for NP

has led to a reorientation of national

policy so that weight of NPs is ensured at

the latter stages of Plan production – i.e.

prior to referendum and being ‘made’.

The housing allocations issue has dogged

many NPs and equally have beleaguered

Local Plans. The shift to a standardised

housing methodology (OAHN) has been

trailed and this has implications for NP

groups given the housing targets and

allocations for their area may alter.

Clarity from the LPA is being addressed as

the LPA have to identify strategic

priorities and policies in the Local Plan.

From end of July 2018 LPAs must also

clarify in their Statement of Community

https://www.ourneighbourhoodplanning.org.uk/resources/documents

https://www.ourneighbourhoodplanning.org.uk/resources/documents


7

Involvement (SCI) the support and

assistance they will offer to groups.

There are three situations where

variations or options to modify and review

Plans once ‘made’ exist – the NPPG

responds to uncertainty about when and

how to do this effectively (see NPPG - para

85) but this will need good cooperation

between LPAs and the NP groups.

3.9 Survey findings in overview

Here we give a general appraisal of the

questionnaire findings given that the range

of questions posed went beyond the

workshop topics. Some material that is

specific to those topic areas are found in

the relevant chapters (4-7).

In general terms the questionnaire

responses highlighted issues already

known to the research team. 50% of

respondents reported that the NP

experience was as expected. Others that

it involved more work than envisaged and

it is a long, arduous process. Many of these

experiences reflect those captured in the

“User experience” report (Parker et al,

2014) and in wider academic debate –

issues with lack of clarity and guidance

(with many relying on external advice and

support), concerns on how to ensure the

Plan reflects the differing views of the

community and does not get hijacked by a

particular interest group (i.e. NIMBY’s) or

the usual suspects.

Ongoing challenges in writing planning

policies referred to by one participant as

“dark art and witchery”. While unwilling

to confirm the magical properties of

Planning, the authors noted that 54% of

respondents reported that their

experience of developing a neighbourhood

Plan has modified their views on the value

of neighbourhood planning.

Participants highlighted the flexibility to

address issues of importance to their

community as an important part of the

design of NP. However, many felt that in

practice NP was limited in scope –

constrained by the legislation and framing

of Neighbourhood Planning and the limited

focus on land-use planning issues.

Furthermore, the respondents saw NP as a

complicated and long-winded process.

Producing a NP is resource intensive and

reliant on both social and financial capital.

The financial costs incurred range from

£500 to £30,000 and which in many cases

costs were expected to rise.

The number of ‘active’ volunteers range

from 5 to 20 – many reported the number

of volunteers was sufficient. While low

numbers caused problems for some, others

reported that having a “core” of

volunteers ensured uniformity in approach

and another group found it easier to

progress once the numbers reduced. Some

reported numbers have dwindled over

time as interest waned.

70% of respondents reported unexpected

benefits of engaging in NP - benefits

beyond the Plan included:

o Understanding the views of local

residents and what they value;

o Community spirit – involvement of

the community and uniting residents

o Better relationships with LPA;

o Increased knowledge of planning

process;

o Widening skill base.

Furthermore, as NP sits within broader

planning hierarchy and problems have

arisen due to the changing policy

landscape - some respondents had found

their Plans subject to developer challenge,

often with bruising results. A newer aspect

of the responses related to emerging

concerns regarding implementation of the

Plan – these centred on two aspects: will

NPs be considered during planning

application processes? Secondly, when and


8

on what basis should neighbourhoods

amend, refresh or start anew with their

Plan. This is discussed in further detail in

the Implementation chapter (Chapter 6).

3.10 Synthesis

Thus, the literature that has burgeoned

since 2012 has identified the multiple

burdens on communities and indicated the

type and organisation of support

necessary. Questions of inclusivity and

quality of engagement have been

recognised and overall the context of

multiple factors of change have acted to

slow or otherwise frustrate effective

neighbourhood planning. Together it has

been difficult for active communities to

keep up-to-date with the changes,

especially considering the frequent

reforms and amendments to NP since its

introduction, with emerging local plans,

and with staffing change in LPAs. In order

to help with at least some of the above one

idea that gained favour during HIVE was to

establish a more coherent ‘One-stop shop’

for groups to access information on

legislative changes.

The HIVE, as we explain below, sought to

explore these types of challenges.

The research referred to in this chapter

can be viewed, or sources located, on:

www.reading.ac.uk/neighbourhoodplanni

ng

Two of the three report authors have

recently completed a book to alert and

inform neighbourhood planners about how

to navigate NP more effectively, and

discuss the types of issues set out in this

chapter and the report more generally:

Parker, G. Salter, K. & Wargent, M.

(Winter 2018) Neighbourhood Planning

in Practice. (Lund Humphries, London).




9

4. Role and relationship

between the Local Planning

Authority and NP groups

The role and relationship of the Local Planning Authority – in terms of their

duty to support and the approach taken in Neighbourhood Planning as a

‘co-produced’ effort.

4.1 LPA relations and experiences

Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) have a

key role in neighbourhood planning and

remain as important decision-makers in

the process. They must fulfil a series of

legislative duties associated to key steps

and have a broad ‘duty to support’ NP

groups. However, the duty to support is

not prescribed and this has caused some

issues. As time has passed some degree of

clarity has been evolving and some

measures to nudge LPAs under this heading

has emerged. The NPPG (National Planning

Practice Guidance) provides a steer in this

regard, indicating that LPAs need to:

Be proactive in providing information

to communities about Neighbourhood

Planning;

Fulfil its duties and take decisions as

soon as possible, and within statutory

time periods where these apply;

Set out a clear and transparent

decision-making timetable and share

this with communities engaged in NP

Constructively engage with the

community throughout the process

including when considering the

recommendations of the independent

examiner

Should also provide constructive

comments on the emerging

neighbourhood plan prior to

submission and discuss the supporting

documents.

How these are applied remains moot and

details are all important. Further work

may be needed given that the

supportiveness of the LPA has a direct

impact on ability of groups to progress

their Plan. The HIVE discussion was

designed to explore this area further using

the following three questions:

Q1. What is your experience of working with the LPA?

How do you get to the point where the required assistance and support is provided?

Q2. What is it that neighbourhood planning groups need from LPAs (given that NP is ‘community-led’)?

What is the basic offer that you can’t do without?

Q3. How can this offer be improved or supplemented?

Ideas, alternatives and guarantees?

These questions were developed to

explore what the most important elements

are under the broader heading - what is it

that NP groups ‘can’t do without’ and

what are the main ‘failings’ of support?’

(see also Chapter 7).

Variation in support and willingness of

LPAs to engage fully with neighbourhood

planning is widely recognised now, and a

number of reasons have been cited

including: availability of resources,

broader commitments and priorities, their

consideration of the value of NP and

possible concerns about impact of NP on

their ability to deliver strategic planning.

Issues relating to LPA capacity and

resources were acknowledged by HIVE

participants and different priorities,

staffing and resourcing levels, knowledge

of NP (often groups have more expertise

than the LPA), seniority of staff and

continuity in support were all raised.

Change emerged as a pervasive issue, as

discussed later, and in chapters 6 and 8,

given the destabilising effect this has on

NP groups - and exacerbated by serial

factors of change.


10

4.2 HIVE findings

When asked about the supportiveness of

LPAs there was a mixed response with

around a third of participants seeing their

LPAs as giving limited support or deeming

them ‘unsupportive’ - a smaller number

thought they had been very supportive.

For some, LPA support had improved over

time. The lack of prescription has played a

part in the variation in the type and

quality of support offered by LPAs and this

was endorsed by participants.

Most saw the LPA as performing a rather

hands-off advisory role and overall in the

workshops it was felt that the LPA needed

to better structure their support. Given

that needs vary across neighbourhoods it

was felt that to be effective at least some

of the support and advice has to be

tailored to suit conditions and needs.

Moreover, a proactive and positive

approach should be present and from that

disposition there is more scope to work

collaboratively.

On hearing the mixed response from the

survey, participants thought that clearer

standards or minimum offers were

required - some citing a better use of NP

resources which could assist (i.e. how the

£30,000 burdens money was used). This,

however, reflected a broader concern

about how and on what basis funding and

resources were used by government,

consultants and LPAs in support of the

activity.

Respondents raised a number of questions

in their responses relating to LPAs and

support, including:

• Querying what support LPAs are

required to offer – ‘what is actually

statutory and what is discretionary?’

This highlights an ongoing confusion

about what to expect from the LPA

(and what to ask for);

• How to involve / garner support LPA

when they have other priorities e.g.

progressing the Local Plan. This also

highlighted a possible lack of

confidence amongst some groups in

liaising effectively with LPAs, some of

whom may be less enthusiastic about

NP.

• How to develop a good working

relationship with the LPA – indicating

the known importance of trust as

some community members are

distrustful of LPA advice. This is linked

to the prior point and highlights again

that advice and support has been

mixed; both in how it has been

forthcoming and in its quality /

consistency;

• How to locate best practice in LPA

support arrangements from other

participants. Moreover how to

identify the hallmarks of such practice

and understand the context in which

this operates (and how or where this

does or doesn’t apply).

Sharing data/evidence as well as

improving the quality and frequency of

communications was indicated as relevant

given the uncertainties that change can

bring for NP. Participants in the HIVE

wanted clear advice from the LPA and in

particular wanted to know, from the

outset, ‘what is the remit of the NP’ (e.g.

with regards to housing numbers). In areas

where the NP is being prepared in advance

of the Local Plan it was felt the LPA should

publish their evidence base online.

Groups are somewhat reliant on LPAs to

assist and the stand-off or gap at the heart

of that conundrum about knowing what is

needed (see Chapter 7). This presents an

issue that surely comes back to education

and clarity in support ‘rules’. However,

others raised concerns about LPAs being

too prescriptive, especially in rural

communities that are facing a

‘sustainability trap’ and would benefit

from additional housing beyond that which

the LPA identify.


11

There was also some discussion over how

much LPA support was actually desirable

with respondent arguing that ‘Having too

much LPA involvement may be just as bad

as not having enough’ and another

reporting that residents in their area are

suspicious of too much LPA involvement as

they see this as the Council trying to

influence local thinking. This underlines

that the support or input that is

preferred is procedural and relating to

necessary input materials rather than

help with output.

Other responses in the HIVE overall

covered questions of consistency - that

LPAs change their advice mid-way

through the process – either due to

changes in their Local Plan or because it is

the first time they have looked at what the

group are doing e.g. telling them after

preferred sites are identified that none of

the sites are suitable. One group

reinforced findings from other research by

the authors which stresses the importance

of the relationship with individual LPA

officers - this can mean that NPs groups

are left adrift if such officers leave the

Authority.

This relates to an overarching issue of

Change which became a notable theme

here (and this permeated all workshops).

In exploration this was recognised as

having multiple dimensions and

combinations and is a source of

considerable frustration. The changes

include:

Changing national policy and

regulations;

Parameters for meeting basic

conditions changing (often due to High

Court decisions);

Changing Local Plan status and the

relationship with the LPA over the

Local Plan

Changing LPA staffing and associated

disruption;

Variable levels of knowledge and

experience of NP in LPAs - which

meant that support was often

fragmented or did not instil

confidence;

Many areas are facing restructuring -

through merging and reorganisation of

LPAs. Such changes are creating

concerns and the impacts on

neighbourhood planning activity are

unknown.

The topic of change is further reflected

upon in the final chapter here.

There were several practical ideas that

emerged, including notably desiring a

proactive LPA and specifically citing a

need to engage with groups at the start

of the process. Also that existing resources

should be highlighted better, for example

a list of the available evidence would save

time and repetition of effort by NP groups

as well as help avoid gaps or weaknesses in

evidence marshalled in support of a Plan –

the ideal place being on the LPA website.

It was understood that the LPA have other

priorities too, but some NP groups felt that

they would like to be engaged in more

strategic matters that also impact on their

community. This point highlights how the

NDP faces in two directions simultaneously

- to the community and to the LPA in

seeking to reconcile both needs and views

and NP groups need to be enabled to

understand both sets of needs and issues

There was an indication that peer learning

from other NP groups was more beneficial

than relying on LPAs. This underscored a

feeling of mistrust or lack of confidence in

many LPAs when it came to Neighbourhood

Planning. It also reinforced the need for

trust to be built and how individual

relations are critical in this regard.

In line with previous recommendations it is

perceived that bespoke Memoranda of

Understanding (MoU) can assist in


12

structuring the relationship. In terms of

mechanisms such as the MoU its was

recognised that a highly standardised

approach may be flawed - each group is

likely to have different needs (outside of

any standard elements of support).

The policy iteration relating to the

Statement of Community Involvement

(SCI) was seen as only a marginal

improvement as the SCI could also be

worded opaquely. Research looking at SCIs

after July 31st 2018 (i.e. the date for NP

support to be published in each LPAs SCI)

would be useful.

Slightly beyond the remit of the

discussions but clearly important are

related questions of intra-community

relations and in particular the Steering

Group and Parish Council / forum

relationship - which also came up in

discussions expressed in chapter 6 where

continuity post-‘Made’ status and

implementation of the Plan were

scrutinised.

Overall there is inconsistency of support

and a lack of certainty over what LPAs

should provide. Further work on what

constitutes an effective and appropriate

Duty to Support is needed.


13

5. Evidence in


The evidence base for the Plan – what is evidence, how to access or commission this, how to ensure quality and how to use evidence in the development of the

neighbourhood plan.

5.1 Evidence in Neighbourhood Planning

A strong evidence base forms the foundation of a Neighbourhood Plan. The initial contention that NDPs could be based on a ‘light touch’ approach has been eroded - in part as a result of challenges by the development industry. There is now a clearer recognition of the need for a robust evidence base. What this means in practice is less clear. The HIVE discussions centred around the following questions:

Q1. What has been your experience of this aspect of neighbourhood planning?

Primary and secondary data Q2. How did you determine what was

needed and what constitutes robust evidence?

How did you assemble the evidence? Are there gaps?

Q3. How can this stage be improved or supplemented?

Ideas, information and training?

The literature on NP has already highlighted that an inadequate evidence base to justify policies is a key issue identified at examination stage (see Parker, Salter and Hickman, 2017). This research reported that 90% of examiners had examined NPs where the evidence base was lacking – including topics such as the Sustainability Appraisal/SEA, housing need and housing allocations and local green space. Weaknesses in the evidence base can lead to the modification of policies, deletion of policies and in some cases failure of the Plan.

Experience has also shown that evidence is not only required to support the policies in the NP but also to demonstrate due process and to explain why and how decisions have been made. Again, weaknesses in the approach, or a lack of transparency, had led to NPs been challenged in the High Court in terms of process and the use and analysis of evidence. There have been moves to clarify issues around evidence include the recent NPIERS guidance on the examination process which explains the difference between evidence and opinion (NPIERS, 2018). There is no ‘tick box’ list of evidence required to support a NP as this will depend on the scope and focus of the NP and the issues to be addressed in the NP policies. Participants were asked about how to identify, commission and use evidence and also overwhelmed by the numerous sources of evidence; with one raising the question of ‘How to get through the muddle of so much information / evidence you don’t know where to start”. Some participants wanted a structure for the Plan to assist their early thinking. The application of evidence in the NP has been clarified over time:

A proportionate robust evidence base should support choices made and the approach taken;

Groups need to draw upon evidence to explain the intention and rationale of policies – including the policy justification;

Evidence is also required to support decisions that have been made and to ensure transparency of process e.g. if allocating sites for development (including housing sites) an appraisal of options and an assessment of individual sites against clearly identified criteria should be carried out. It is likely that more than one approach could be adopted when assessing sites so groups will also need to explain which method was taken forward and why;


14

Evidence must be plain and context specific;

Community views do not in themselves constitute ‘evidence’ – opinions can provide a steer on areas and topics for which evidence should be gathered (to support or rule out);

There are specific requirements and advice available on the evidence required for particular policy areas e.g. Local Green Space, housing need assessments, SEA and site assessment; o These can be found in the NPPF,

NPPG and supporting guidance and in documents produced by Locality, Planning Aid England and other third sector organisations.

Groups should also take opportunity to discuss Local Plan strategy for their area and strategic policies of relevance – some LPAs identify a specific housing target for named settlements or an overall target which NDPs across the district or unitary area should deliver. Similarly, some issues may be addressed at a strategic level e.g. Affordable Housing targets and %s.

5.2 HIVE findings

HIVE participants expressed several key

points or features in relation to this topic

area. Concerns were expressed that there

is lot of evidence to look at and there was

uncertainty about how this could be

filtered down, how its relevance should be

determined and how it should be analysed.

As discussed above, groups saw a role for

the LPA in organising information and

material and providing information about

evidence i.e. ‘what, where, how.’ At

present much time and effort is expended

by groups on gathering evidence that the

LPA may have to hand, however, LPA

websites are often poor or very difficult to

navigate making it hard for groups to

access this information. A single

authoritative source or ‘bundles of

information and evidence’ created for NP

groups and published on the LPA website

(which were criticised for opacity or

incoherence) would help establish early

the evidence that exists and to identify

other elements or evidence that may be

needed.

Others felt that a template for evidence

gathering would be useful as this could

help groups to identify potential sources of

evidence. Planning Aid England have

produced such support material, see:

https://www.ourneighbourhoodplanning.

org.uk/storage/resources/documents/Ho

w_to_gather_and_use_evidence.pdf

However, the lack of wider awareness of

such material indicates that work may

need bolstering or reasserting as per

previous comments.

With some groups there was an ongoing

confusion about opinion vs evidence; an

apparent need for tutoring on evidence

meaning/import is therefore identified.

These points appear to resolve back to a

need for research methods training. This

centred on questions of standardisation of

terminology to ensure that

communications are clear and well

understood by lay people.

This also links to questions and uncertainty

over what does constitute a ‘robust’

evidence base and related concerns over

how to judge the validity of information,

how to select appropriate evidence and

how to determine if it is up-to-date. There

was some hesitancy on relying on

secondary sources of data, especially if

the methodology followed is not clear and

the approach transparent – a particular

concern with open source data. The

transparency and trustworthiness of some

sources e.g. developer funded data was

also questioned.

Groups do procure primary data in support

of their Plan and this is often due to a need

for context specific information and data

https://www.ourneighbourhoodplanning.org.uk/storage/resources/documents/How_to_gather_and_use_evidence.pdf




15

which relate specifically to the designated

neighbourhood plan area. Furthermore,

the starting point for many groups is to

conduct a Parish survey or questionnaire in

order to gather community views.

Discussion centred on the need to avoid

leading questions, to collect data rather

than opinion, how to judge the validity of

the data, how to ensure widespread

engagement and the balance between

carrying out a comprehensive

questionnaire and getting residents hopes

us about what the NP can address. Equally

using outsiders to conduct such work could

run the risk of losing key nuances or other

specifics relevant for a neighbourhood.

This links to the long running question of

what to do with non-land use actions /

ideas that are generated by the

community. It was seen as important that

community aspirations are retained in

some format, for example, as an appendix

to the Neighbourhood Plan or as a

supporting document. As will be discussed

in Chapter 6 on Implementation. The

identification of community aspirations

and projects can be used as a basis to lever

in funding or to deliver on projects

following the making of the Plan. Some

participants cited a greater willingness on

the part of others to work with a

neighbourhood when a ‘made’ Plan was in

place.

Questions were also raised over how this

“neighbourhood” evidence (i.e.

information gathered from the

community) can marry with the more

technical evidence that may be collected

or required in support of the Plan. It is

important to reiterate that policies must

be supported by a robust evidence base

and community views do not in themselves

constitute evidence (see NPIERS, 2018). It

is however important that the community

sentiment is not lost – the Plan is after all

a community-led plan and the views and

aspirations of the community can help to

set the tone and sentiment of the Plan and

explain the intentions behind the policies.

The broader planning context and policy

environment was also discussed as the

relative weight given to evidence can also

depend on (local/neighbourhood) political

change which can influence the direction

of the Plan and its policies. Evidence

relating to housing need and housing

targets was considered to be a particular

challenge in this regard.

Importantly, the linkage between

evidence and desired outcome was

recognised – the use and application of

evidence? Consultants were seen by some

as useful in assisting with interpreting

evidence and using it as a basis for

developing policies.

Overall participants indicated some

confusion over need; availability and

validity of sources of information / data

and evidence.


16

6 Implementation of

Neighbourhood Plans

Implementation of the Neighbourhood Plan – how the Plan will be used and

kept up to date.

6.1 Implementation of NPs

An aspect of increasing concern has been

the use of the neighbourhood plan after it

has been ‘made’ and when a Plan may

need to be amended, refreshed or a new

Plan prepared. Some key points to bear in

mind:

The ‘Light touch’ approach to NP preparation has shifted over time - meaning that more care is needed over the evidence base its robustness to challenge;

There is a shifting local and national planning policy context – it is unlikely that a Plan’s policies will remain up-to-date and relevant for the whole Plan period;

Many groups see having a “made” plan as the end game, however, policies need to be used as a basis for determination of planning applications and so ensuring its application in practice is important;

The Plan and the associated work can help to form the basis for spin-off community projects or proposals thus yielding benefits beyond the Plan.

It may be useful to look at the

CPRE/NALC ‘How to shape’ guide on the

Implementation stage of NP:

https://www.nalc.gov.uk/library/publica

tions/1633-how-to-shape-where-you-

live/file and the information on this

aspect of NP on the University of Reading

neighbourhood planning website.

The HIVE discussions centred around the

following three questions in respect of NP

implementation:

Q1. How do you expect your Plan and policies to be upheld and applied?

How will you monitor the made Plan? Issues?

Q2. How do you expect to keep your Plan up to date?

Given the changing policy environment. Issues?

Q3.What are your reflections on implementing the wider community agenda and ambition?

6.2 HIVE findings

This topic area may be broken into two

main elements: that of implementation of

the Plan after it is ‘made’ and secondly the

need to review and then act on change to

make appropriate amendments or redo a

Plan. This required forms of ‘everyday

management’ of the Plan.

It was evident that many groups had not

considered the implementation of their

Plan fully and instead focussed in on the

end-game of reaching a ‘made’ Plan. Many

recognised the importance of

implementation and considered that more

information and guidance should be

available. This would assist groups to

recognise and consider the mechanisms for

implementation early in the process. This

is of particular importance as those

developing the Plan (i.e. the Steering

Group) may not be responsible for its

implementation (this is the Qualifying

Body). There is a danger of loss of

expertise/experience gained through the

process which may occur when a steering

group disbands and ‘hands over’ the Plan

to the Parish Council (or Forum in an urban

/ un-parished area). Participants

considered that a strategy for

implementation and review should be

considered by the Steering Group and

Qualifying Body and reference and

guidelines for implementation may wish to

be included with the Terms of Reference

associated with the NP process.

https://www.nalc.gov.uk/library/publications/1633-how-to-shape-where-you-live/file




17

The Qualifying Body (Parish Council or

Forum in an urban / un-Parished area)

should be consulted on any planning

applications submitted for development

within the Neighbourhood Area. This

affords opportunity to influence the

decision-making for the application. NP

policies are unlikely to be only

consideration that a local planning

authority will need to consider. The

participants saw that an increased

emphasis on engagement is critical to

getting support for implementation given

that the NP may be monitored and utilised

by those with little knowledge of the

process. Furthermore, implementation of

NP policies also led to a recognised

disjuncture between aspiration and

feasible policy - that policy needs to be

persuasive in order to be effectively

applied.

During the course of the discussions, there

was some uncertainty and limited

knowledge about how the planning

application process works. It is important

to remember that the NP is one element

for consideration where planning

applications are determined – planning law

stipulates that planning applications will

be determined in accordance with the

development plan (which means the local

plan AND the NDP) unless material

considerations indicate otherwise.

Some saw the advantage of a ‘made’ plan

as helping to organise community

feedback on planning applications - in that

citing specific policies would give shape

and legitimacy to comments being made.

This distinction between the Steering

Group and the Qualifying Body also relates

to real uncertainty regarding the

monitoring of the Plan and keeping it up

to date. Questions raised include who has

the power to decide if / when / how the

Plan should be reviewed? This reflects

broader issues of power and responsibility.

Many reflected on the considerable effort

that would be required to monitor the Plan

and to keep it up-to-date. LPA briefings

and updates were considered necessary to

ensure that NP groups know when they

need to amend their Plan as the steering

group are not linked to ongoing local plan

production and may not be alert to

changes in the broader planning context.

Many benefits beyond the Plan were

discussed including the use of CIL and

s106 to deliver the community

aspirations. It is important that groups

recognise the local context and appraise

themselves with the LPA’s position and

intentions regarding CIL. The need to link

to CIL /s106 more effectively and to plan

for CIL /s106 spend was identified by

participants. It was felt that advice on how

to draw up credible project and spend

priorities from CIL and also via s106

contribution would be beneficial.

Information about how to make best use of

the Plan and associated energy and

evidence to lever-in external support

would also be beneficial.

As summarised above, discussions on

implementation were diverse but a

general lack of engagement with

implementation and post-adoption (made)

Plan activity and preparation was

highlighted. There was a feeling that

better education about NP

implementation is needed and in

particular advice on revisions to ensure

the NP is used in practice. It was suggested

that engagement is needed with NALC and

other key third sector actors to make them

aware of the potential challenges, and

lack of awareness, of the implementation

stage.


18

7 Support and resources in


Support and resources – how citizen-planners are assisted, informed, and sustained through a taxing process.

7.1 Support and Resources in NP

In terms of the support and advice that NP communities receive there have been some generalised and specific issues identified.

The HIVE discussion centred around the

following questions:

Q1. What has been your experience of this aspect of neighbourhood planning?

What are the most important elements of support and advice?

Q2. What form should this take? Standardised / who from? Q3. What lessons can be learnt about

the current support? How can the offer be improved or

supplemented? Ideas and

alternatives?

Concerns have been raised regarding the

ability of ‘laypersons’ to write

implementable planning policies, with

many groups seeking professional input

leading to concerns regarding re-scripting

and loss of community ownership. There is

a variation in the type of support

consultants can offer and their ways of

working differ. Support tends to focus on

the technical aspects of plan development

e.g. writing planning policies, Strategic

Environmental Assessment.

Funding is available for groups to procure

external support – and further technical

support is available for eligible groups. See

the Locality webpages. However it was

stated that for some a ‘catch-22’ situation

can arise whereby some spend may be

necessary before a funding award is made.

7.2 HIVE findings

i. Third-party advice and guidance

A theme that has been raised in prior

research was again a feature of this

exercise: standardisation of support versus

bespoke support. All respondents had

drawn on advice and guidance available -

especially resources published by Locality

including the Locality Roadmap. They have

also been referring to other NPs, the NPPF,

guidance from DCLG and the NPPG.

Participants also reported that resources

and advice on particular issues is missing

or in short supply – this includes simplified

guidance, basic things such as maps of the

Parish, information about how to start the

initial stages of the process (how to ‘get

things moving’), step-by-step process

notes and a one-stop shop for guidance.

However, participants also discussed the

potential for reliance on standardised

approaches and general advice provided in

these advice notes and that there remains

a place, and need, for bespoke support.

Some considered that templates would be

beneficial (for example, to assist with

evidence gathering) whereas other

reported that reliance on templates, and

a standardised support package from

consultants, had resulted in some NDPs

running into trouble at examination / in

the High Court. Thus care should be

exercised with duplication.

There were also calls for more

opportunities for peer-to-peer learning

and workshops and support events (like

HIVE). One positive idea was to create a

NDP library that highlights the issues and

strengths across different contexts.

Reflecting the increasing judicialised

environment in which NP operates some

groups have required legal advice.


19

Although Locality have provided legal

advice to some groups this does not form

part of the current support programme

and it is therefore missing / in short

supply.

ii. Consultants

Prior research has identified that around

75% of all NP groups have used

consultants, the HIVE sample was similar

with c80% who have or will appoint

consultants. A wide range of support was

being offered by NP consultants, policy

writing again was high on the list, as was a

more general advice role including

drafting the Plan. SEA work was reported

as being particularly complicated and as a

result many NP groups had appointed

consultants to assist in this aspect of NP.

In order of importance, external support

was needed due to lack of internal

expertise, funds available to do so, ‘other’

and on the advice of the LPA. Other

reasons cited include protecting

volunteers from providing testimony at an

inquiry, on advice of a support

organisation, expectation by the Parish

Council, to ensure integrity and due to

time constraints. The involvement of

consultants can also help to ensure

evidence has been analysed independently

and competently and proofs, to some

extent, against challenge by the LPA or

residents (or indeed Developers).

The majority of respondents valued the

consultant input - this is to be expected as

the roles are often critical ones and

groups may well become reliant on

consultants. However, the feedback

demonstrated a mixed bag of experiences

– with some exhorting the value of having

an independent person to provide advice,

others were more sceptical “you only get

what you pay for” and others commenting

that “there is a lot of rubbish out there.”

Overall the PQQ findings reveal a need to better understand the type, quality and basis of support offered through consultants.

Groups have found it challenging to

identify what input they need and the

value of support, the ‘we don’t know what

we don’t know’ conundrum. This

underpinned several of the key points

raised:

• How to gauge how much external

support is required?

• How to isolate and identify what the

aspects of NP are that require

professional input versus those that

can be carried out by the community?

• How can limited NP funds available be

used to the best effect?

• What is the relative merit of

appointing external support as

compared to up-skilling the

community?

• What is the process for appointing

consultants – on what terms and what

should be expected?

• How to deal with issues arising if the

consultant’s advice is contested.

There was a strong recognition that

individual relations and expertise was

important and that this could be provided

by many sources including consultants and

the LPA. Some participants reported that

as the support offer and knowledge from

the LPA increased there was less of a

requirement for consultancy input. The

focus on consultants produced numerous

points, including:

Concerns regarding ‘wasting money’

on consultants;

The importance of word of mouth

recommendations and the benefits of

asking other groups for advice on who

they appointed;

The independent nature of the

consultant is beneficial during policy

drafting - can summarise succinctly

the evidence collated and take the

emotion out of the writing;


20

The importance of the local context -

when appointing consultants it is

important that they are aware of local

context and situation especially the

Local Plan;

Caution regarding the use of standard

templates by consultants;

Questions regarding the relationship

between quality of support and cost –

are good quality consultants more

expense?

Some NP groups reported that they

were constrained on who they could

appoint by cap on day-rates set by

Locality – this was particular for very

technical pieces of work.

iii. Peer support

As highlighted in chapter 4, peer learning

was seen as useful. 72% of respondents

have liaised with other NP groups and have

been seeking advice on funding,

community consultation, planning process

and to understand their experiences and

pitfalls. Some groups are now passing on

their knowledge, but 63% welcome more

interaction and networking with a focus on

sharing best practice, advice and pitfalls

to avoid. A further 22% were ‘unsure’ at

this stage – reflecting perhaps their early

stage in Plan preparation.

As valued as other NDPs are in providing

inspiration for NP groups and as a source

of information, some participants

expressed difficulties associated which

determining what is valid and robust –

caution that peer-to-peer learning has a

danger of extending issues rather than

resolving them?

iv. Other sources of support / advice

needed

As discussed in Chapter 4 (role and

relationship with the LPA), the LPA also

has a role in supporting and advising

neighbourhood planning groups. This

relates to not only practical advice and

support on the NP process but also

openness, transparency and honesty about

the Local Plan process. This includes

providing a realistic timescale for delivery

and notifying groups of potential changes

in the planning pipeline. It was also felt

that the process of Local Plan production,

and how to feed into the process, needs to

be made coherent and clear.

Some groups also voiced concerns over the

use of ‘burdens’ funding that LPAs receive

from Central Government. These monies

are primarily used to pay for the costs of

examination and referendum. It was felt

that there is little transparency over how

this money is actually spent leading to

suspicions of LAs withholding and not using

such NP funds effectively.

As previously discussed, greater LPA

support and advice can help to reduce

reliance and dependence on consultants

and money being wasted on their

appointment.

Overall there is a fragmentation of

support and advice and it is confusing for

many groups to identify and draw in the

best set of inputs for their situation.


21

8 Conclusion and synopsis

Much of the findings of the HIVE appear to

reinforce prior research conducted by the

Reading team (see Parker et al, 2014,

2015; Parker and Wargent, 2017a, b).

However there were some new iterations

or continuing trends that stand out.

1. Emphasis on the impact of

(multiple) change:

Substantively the multiple factors of

change that act to undermine the Plan

during and after its finalisation loomed

large in the debates. Clearly much more

work needs to be done to provide clarity,

some certainty and also appropriate

resources to sustain neighbourhood

planning in the longer-term. Unless these

issues gain more focused attention from

government then neighbourhood planning

is likely to founder.

2. Role and understanding of

Evidence:

There were real concerns and associated

sets of questions regarding the sources,

quality, and status of evidence. Such

issues are significant as unless they can be

satisfactorily resolved they will undermine

the stability of NP in the long term.

3. Efficiency - in advice, resources

and support:

How NP practice is organised and

facilitated is very mixed and acts to

prolong uncertainty. From basic things like

the presentation of support material on

LPA websites, to a portal for possible

relevant evidence, updates on local and

other policy change - these issues act to

affect the quality of Plans, possibly slow

progress and create inefficiencies for all

parties.

4. Implementation and need to

revise NPs:

Issues of communications, of deploying NP

policy effectively are apparent. The need

to review / amend Plans needs to

communicated better – governance

arrangements re: role of Steering Group

versus the Qualifying Body (i.e.

Forum/Parish) cam e out as did the need

for post-Made Plan communications

between LPAs and Qualifying Bodies.

The role for third party organisations e.g.

NALC, to advise groups on implementation

and to understand potential challenges re:

monitoring, updating and using the Plan as

a basis to comment on planning

applications was highlighted as support to

LPAs.

5. Opportunities for peer-to-peer

learning, workshops and shared

learning:

Groups find it helpful to learn from each

other and receive training. This provides

groups with confidence, knowledge,

understanding and the skill sets to help

them to produce the Plan (rather than

necessarily having to appoint consultants

or rely so heavily on third party support).

Improvement on this aspect of NP may at

least then aid towards “knowing what they

don’t know”.

6. Outstanding questions arising:

The work brought together through HIVE

indicates a number of questions which still

to be addressed or discussed fully:

The offer from LPAs and the difficulties of an undefined / loosely defined Duty to Support;

Longevity of NP – and need for review/ amendment;

Stability of the environment for NP groups (as volunteers);

Overall value of NPs in different circumstances;

Need for high quality support and peer learning.


22

9. References and

materials

Note: For a fuller list of resources and materials, see: www.reading.ac.uk/neighbourhoodplanning

Bailey, N. (2017) ‘Housing at the neighbourhood level: a review of the initial approaches to neighbourhood development plans under the Localism Act 2011 in England’, Journal of Urbanism, Vol. 10(1): 1-14.

Bradley, Q. (2017) ‘Neighbourhood planning and the impact of place identity on housing development in England’, Planning Theory and Practice, Vol. 18(2): 233-248.

Bradley, Q. and Sparling, W. (2017) ‘The impact of neighbourhood planning and localism on house-building in England’, Housing Theory and Society, Vol. 34(1): 106-118.

Colomb, C. (2017) ‘Participation and conflict in the formation of Neighbourhood Areas and Forums in ‘super- diverse’ cities’, in Brownill, S. and Bradley, Q. (eds.) Localism and neighbourhood planning: Power to the people?, Bristol, Policy Press, pp.127-144.

Davoudi, S. and Cowie, P. (2013) ‘Are English neighbourhood forums democratically legitimate?’, Planning Theory and Practice, Vol. 14(4): 562-566.

CPRE/NALC (2013) How to shape where you live. See: https://www.nalc.gov.uk/library/publications/1633-how-to-shape-where-you-live/file

Field, M. and Layard, A. (2017) ‘Locating community-led housing within neighbourhood plans as a

response to England's housing needs’, Public Money and Management, Vol. 37(2): 105-112.

NPIERS (2018) Guidance to service users and Examiners. See: http://www.rics.org/Global/NPIERS_Guidance_to_Service_Users_and_Examiners_030418_hl.pdf

Parker, G., Lynn, T. and Wargent, M. (2015) ‘Sticking to the Script? The co-production of Neighbourhood Planning in England’ Town Planning Review, Vol. 86(5): 519-536.

Parker, G., Lynn, T. and Wargent, M. (2014) User Experience of Neighbourhood Planning in England. Published research report, October 2014. Locality, London.

Parker, G. and Murray, C. (2012) ‘Beyond tokenism? Community-led planning and rational choices: findings from participants in local agenda-setting at the neighbourhood scale in England’, Town Planning Review, Vol. 83(1): 1-28.

Parker, G. and Salter, K. (2017) ‘Taking Stock of Neighbourhood Planning 2011-2016’, Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 32(4): 478-490.

Parker, G., Salter, K. and Hickman, H. (2016) ‘Caution: Examinations in progress. The operation of neighbourhood plan examinations in England.’ Town and Country Planning, Vol. 85(12): 516-522.

Parker, G. and Salter, K. (2016) ‘Five years of neighbourhood planning – a review of take-up and distribution’. Town and Country Planning, Vol. 85(5): 175-182.

Parker, G. and Wargent, M. (2018) ‘Reimagining neighbourhood governance: the future of Neighbourhood Planning in England’, Town Planning Review, Vol. 89(4): 379-402.






http://www.rics.org/Global/NPIERS_Guidance_to_Service_Users_and_Examiners_030418_hl.pdf



http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/view/creators/90001717.html

http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/38073/


http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/view/creators/90001717.html





23

Parker, G. and Wargent, M. (2017a) Neighbourhood Planning Users Revisited. Research summary available at: http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/UoR-NPUR-Exec-Jan17.pdf

Parker, G. and Wargent, M. (2017b) Participant Experience of Neighbourhood Planning in England Working Papers in Real Estate and Planning #No.1/2017, University of Reading. Accessible at: http://www.henley.ac.uk/school/page/rep-working-papers-2014/

Stanier, R. (2014) ‘Neighbourhood Planning’, 42nd Joint Planning Law Conference Oxford, 19th-21st September, 2014.

Vigar, G., Gunn, S. and Brooks, E. (2017) ‘Governing our neighbours: participation and conflict in neighbourhood planning’, Town Planning Review, Vol. 88(5): 423-442.

http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/UoR-NPUR-Exec-Jan17.pdf

http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/UoR-NPUR-Exec-Jan17.pdf

http://www.henley.ac.uk/school/page/rep-working-papers-2014/

http://www.henley.ac.uk/school/page/rep-working-papers-2014/

neighbourhood planning hive report: experiences …...np hive report – june 2018 ii preface this...

Documents